George W. Bush calls himself "a war President", but his real
problem seems to be the economy. Moreover, the war was fought and won so
swiftly, it has virtually faded from the minds of Americans, despite the
fact we have troops deployed in combat situations both in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
Once the "embedded" journalists came home, the war was, for most
people, over.

Americans have always been reluctant to change Presidents in the midst of
a war, but now that Democrats are telling people the Iraq war was unjust
and unwise, recent history tends to suggest voters will reject any President
who led the nation into one. This is how the Democrat Party is seeking to
seize power again. Given the fact that America was attacked, to undermine
the resolve of Americans in a time of war borders on being traitorous.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt served an unprecedented four terms precisely because
World War II was raging during his time in office. Lyndon B. Johnson had
to give up his desire for a second term because public opinion turned against
the war in Vietnam and Nixon was elected on the promise he would end it.
The Paris peace accords did end it and the Watergate scandal put an end to
his presidency. Presidents have almost always been reluctant to go to war.
Even the Gulf War that Bush41 successfully pursued, liberating Kuwait from
an Iraqi invasion, did nothing to keep him in office. He was replaced by
a known draft-dodger whose antipathy to the military caused many serving
officers to leave.

Following 9-11, when Bush43 invaded Afghanistan to deprive al-Qaida of its
training base for militant Muslims, he was applauded for taking direct action
to protect the nation. When he identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis
of evil" no one disagreed, although, at the time, some people asked
why North Korea was on the list. Now we know. After years of defying United
Nations resolutions, throwing UN inspectors out, and being recognized by
every intelligence service in the world as threat to regional and world peace,
Bush43 initiated a "regime change" and everyone applauded.

So why are so many Americans being urged to believe that Bush43 "misled" or
even "lied" to them? Why is this generation of Americans so impatient
with the process of initiating some form of democracy in Iraq? Why not remove
a dictator who waged two wars with neighboring nations, gassed his own citizens,
and tried to assassinate a US President? In essence, the real issue of Iraq
is whether or not it was the right and, indeed, the moral thing to do? Americans
instinctively understand this.

As evidence mounts of countless thousands of Iraqis murdered by Saddam’s
regime, why do Democrats want to get out as fast as possible while saying
nothing about the future of Iraq if it is allowed to become another Islamic
republic run by the same kind of militant Muslims that operate within al-Qaida
or who govern Iran?

In part, the reason may lie in the way the war is being conducted by a volunteer
army that represents career soldiers committed to protecting America’s
interests, as opposed to the Vietnam War that was fought by draftees, over
50,000 of whom gave their lives. Americans who grew up during the 60s and
70s during growing protests against that war are now being urged to equate
that past war with the need to bring some democracy and general progress
to the Middle East.

Vietnam was about opposing Communism. The Middle East is about opposing
radical Islam. Both are totalitarian in nature, but neither has anything
else in common. Why don’t those who want to defeat Bush understand
this?

The likely candidate for the Democrat Party nomination, John Kerry, was
one of the leading protesters to Vietnam War. He testified before Congress
that his fellow soldiers were rapists and war criminals. He faked throwing
his medals away. Yet, he is regarded as the war "hero" and President
Bush, who served honorably in the Texas National Guard, is not.

Bush’s response to 9-11 was to use American power to root out our
enemies and restructure the Middle East so it poses far less of a threat.
Kerry’s response to war is visceral and he has tapped into that response
among others who cannot or will not take a long-term view of the world as
it is today. He has tapped into the coward’s vote.

This is not the 1970s. It is an entirely new era in which the war against
the United States is not being waged by armies, but by the stealthy use of
terror to create enough fear to weaken our resolve to thwart the ambitions
of fundamentalist Muslims; men who are committed to imposing their religion
on the world. Unlike many Americans, they are very patient. They waited for
eight years between the first bombing of the Twin Towers in 1993 and the
attack in 2001 that destroyed that symbol of America’s economic power.

Reportedly, they are training an unknown number of terrorists to become "sleeper
cells" in America to wreak further terror upon us in the years ahead.
There are an estimated three million Muslims in America among whom they can
hide and more than two thousand mosques in America in which to meet and plot
their attacks.

Around the world, hardly a week goes by when these terrorists perpetrate
some new atrocity. Hardly a week goes by when some are captured, tried and
sent to prison by nations that are also under attack. Or soon will be.

President Bush, however, now finds himself, his advisers, and the American
intelligence community under attack for taking the only appropriate action
to undermine the ability of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations to
pursue their deadly ambitions. The election campaign is shaping up to be
one led by a Democrat candidate who thinks that the war is a "law enforcement" problem,
not a potential for massive lethal attacks that can take place in any American
city at any time.

Americans are being urged to waver in their resolve to wage the war that
is necessary for our national survival. If they do, no one will be safe and
the future of the nation will be put in jeopardy such as we have not known
since the last World War.

George W. Bush is not perfect. No President is, but he understands the scope
of the threat that America faces. The Democrats either do not or they do
not care because they have demonstrated they are willing to say anything to acquire the power of the Oval Office. The Democrats are no less desperate
for power than those who would destroy this nation.

Their last candidate for President, Al Gore, is now yelling at the top of
his lungs that Bush "betrayed" America. No, he did not. Bush
acted to protect it, something former President Clinton, his Secretary of
State, Madeline Albright, and his National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger,
never did.